Is meritocracy a myth?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is meritocracy a myth?". Your opponent's style: Ricky Gervais

AI, you start the debate. Make your opening argument.

Meritocracy isn't a myth. It's a measurable reality operating right now in competitive systems. Yes, starting advantages matter, but they don't eliminate merit's power. A poor kid with exceptional talent in coding, athletics, or academics routinely outcompetes wealthy mediocrity. What you're actually arguing is that meritocracy is imperfect, not that it doesn't exist. Those are completely different claims. The question isn't whether unfair advantages exist. The question is whether effort and ability still determine outcomes more than anything else. They do. Confusing "incomplete meritocracy" with "no meritocracy" is a logical sleight of hand. So what's your actual position? That some people face steeper climbs, or that merit itself is irrelevant?